Prince George's County v. Brent

JOHN F. McAULIFFE, Judge (Retired, Specially Assigned). From what might have been a rather routine action for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident, there has sprung four years of litigation, two jury trials, two appeals to this Court, and a residuum of questions concerning sufficiency of evidence, statutory interpretation, and public official immunity. THE FACTS On December 10, 2002, a Prince George’s County police cruiser operated by Officer Michael Daily entered an intersection on a red signal and struck a vehicle operated by appellee, Cleveland Brent (hereinafter, “appellee” or “Brent”). Appellee sued Prince George’s County (“the County”) for damages and received a jury verdict for $320,000.

The County filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or, in the alternative for a remittitur, contending that the County enjoyed immunity for all sums above its existing motor vehicle insurance limits, in accordance with the statutory cap established by Maryland Code (1973, 2006 Repl.Vol.), § 5-524 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJ”). 1 Appellee then filed a second amended complaint to add Officer Daily as a defendant. The County filed a motion to dismiss that complaint. After a hearing, the court granted the County’s motion, reduced the damage award recoverable against the County to $20,000, pursuant to the provisions of § 5-524, and dismissed appellee’s second amended complaint, with prejudice. Appellee appealed to this Court, contending that the circuit court should not have dismissed the second amended eom ⁴⁶ plaint or, in any event, that the dismissal should not have been with prejudice.

In an unreported opinion, the panel held that the circuit court neither erred nor abused its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss, but vacated the order and remanded the case with direction to enter a judgment of dismissal that was without prejudice to Brent’s right to file a separate cause of action against Officer Daily. The panel explained that the trial judge had made it clear that he intended only to foreclose permanently the right of the plaintiff to amend the action that had been tried, and not to preclude the plaintiff from pursuing a separate action against Officer Daily. The opinion concluded with this sentence: “We caution the parties that, by our disposition of this appeal, we do not intimate any view whatsoever of what should be the proper outcome of [Brent’s] lawsuit against Officer Daily.” After appellee filed this action against Officer Daily, the County assumed the defense of its employee pursuant to the Local Government Tort Claims Act (“LGTCA”), CJ § 5-301 et seq. The County filed motions for summary judgment alleging that the action was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and on the alternative grounds that: 1) Officer Daily was immune from liability as the operator of an emergency vehicle in the performance of emergency service, § 5-639(b)(l) or, 2) that any verdict against Officer Daily would be capped at $20,000, pursuant to §§ 5-507(b)(2) and 5-511(c), and that an award of $20,000 would be a duplication of the $20,000 judgment already entered against the County after the first trial.

The trial court determined that the question of “emergency service” should be decided first, because § 5-639 would provide complete immunity to Officer Daily if the trier of fact determined that he was operating an emergency vehicle in the performance of emergency service. Section 5—639(b)(1) provides: An operator of an emergency vehicle, who is authorized to operate the emergency vehicle by its owner or lessee, is immune from suit in the operator’s individual capacity for damages resulting from a negligent act or omission while ⁴⁷ operating the emergency vehicle in the performance of emergency service.[ 2 ] The trial court also held that the findings of the first jury as to negligence, absence of contributory negligence, and damages were binding by virtue of principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel, so that the sole issue to be tried was the question of “emergency service.” The court reasoned that if it were determined that the officer was not operating the motor vehicle in emergency service, the further questions raised by the County concerning possible immunity under §§ 5-507 and 5-511 could be resolved by the court following the verdict. The parties agreed that if the additional claimed immunity was not available to the officer, the award would in any event be capped at $200,000 pursuant to § 5-303(a) of the LGTCA. A jury was empaneled to decide the question of “emergency service” and found that Officer Daily was not operating the vehicle in the performance of emergency service at the time of the accident.

Following the verdict, the trial judge conducted a hearing on the County’s claim that even though Officer Daily was not entitled to complete immunity as the operator of an emergency vehicle in emergency service, he was entitled to qualified immunity for any amount above the existing motor vehicle insurance limit, pursuant to either § 5—507(b)(2) or § 5—511(c). The trial judge held that Officer Daily, and therefore the County, was not entitled to the immunity claimed, but that the limit of $200,000 imposed by the LGTCA applied. Deducting the $20,000 already paid as a result of the judgment obtained against the County in the first action, the court directed that final judgment be entered in the amount of $180,000, and it is from that judgment that the County and Officer Daily have appealed. Appellants’ principal contentions are: ⁴⁸ 1.

That the second action was barred because it split a single cause of action, or was otherwise barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel; 2. That the trial judge erred at the second trial by failing to grant appellant’s Motion for Judgment because the evidence conclusively established that Officer Daily was operating his vehicle in emergency service; and, 3. That the trial judge erred at the second trial by failing to grant That the trial court erred in finding that §§ 5— 507(b)(2) and 5-511(c) did not apply to afford Officer Daily immunity as to any amount in excess of the County’s existing motor vehicle insurance limit. DISCUSSION I. Was the Action Barred?

Appellants contend that appellee’s action against Officer Daily, brought after appellee’s action against the County, should have been barred because it amounted to an impermissible splitting of a cause of action, or otherwise because of principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Appellants cite Ex parte Carlin, 212 Md. 526 , 129 A.2d 827 (1957), in support of their contention: It is well established that a single cause of action or an entire claim cannot be split up or divided and separate suits maintained for the various parts thereof. A judgment or decree in a suit for a part only of a single cause of action or entire claim permits res judicata to be successfully relied on if the remainder is sued on later. The rule is intended to prevent multiplicity of litigation and to avoid the vexation, costs and expenses incident to more than one suit on the same cause of action.

Its bases are the maxims that it is the interest of the State, there should be an end to litigation and that no man should be twice sued for the same cause. Id. at 532-33 , 129 A.2d 827 (internal quotations omitted); accord Jones v. Speed, 320 Md. 249, 257-58 , 577 A.2d 64 (1990). ⁴⁹ The critical point to be made here is that there was but one cause of action in this matter—a claim for damages caused by negligence. It was brought against the County, and its success depended on the proof of an actionable claim against the driver of the County’s vehicle, who was operating the vehicle in the course of his employment. Every fact necessary for the adjudication of that action for negligence was litigated in a single action.

Questions of negligence, contributory negligence, causation, damages and vicarious liability were fully litigated. Appellee was barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel as to each issue litigated, and could not have subjected Officer Daily to another trial if unsuccessful on any of those issues. The sole reason for the second action, which the plaintiff had unsuccessfully attempted to include in the first action after the verdict, did not involve the cause of action for negligence—rather, it involved a question of immunity that would affect the amount of the judgment that the plaintiff could recover. The question of whether Officer Daily was operating the motor vehicle in emergency service might have been litigated as a subsequent issue following the resolution of the negligence action, but the County opposed the plaintiffs attempt to do so. 3 The cause of action for negligence was not split, and any multiplicity of proceedings was due to the need to determine separate issues of immunity.

Principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel were certainly applicable in this case but, as the County conceded during the second action, they operated to foreclose relitigation of the underlying cause of action. II Sufficiency of the Evidence At the second trial, in addition to his own testimony, appellee presented evidence from four witnesses: two eyewit ⁵⁰ nesses to the accident; a representative of the State Highway Department to describe the scene, fix certain distances and describe the cycle of the traffic lights; and, Officer Daily as an adverse party. Appellants presented no other witnesses. The testimony disclosed that the accident happened on Allentown Road at the intersection of an off ramp from Branch Avenue.

Officer Daily was proceeding in an easterly direction on Allentown Road, and struck appellee’s vehicle as it was entering Allentown Road, causing appellee’s vehicle to be spun around. The evidence was uncontradicted that appellee was entering the intersection on a green light and that Officer Daily had proceeded through a red light. The accident happened at 4:48 p.m. on December 10, 2002, at “dusk” when many vehicles did not have headlights on. Appellee testified he never heard a siren or horn before the accident, and did not see any flashing or emergency lights before the accident.

He further testified that emergency lights on the cruiser were not turned on until several minutes after the accident. Mary Reese testified that she was a passenger in a vehicle proceeding east on Allentown Road when her vehicle was required to stop in obedience to a traffic light at an intersection that was just west of the intersection where the accident occurred. She said her vehicle was first in line at the red light, in the middle lane, when she heard a siren or bull horn from a police cruiser that was immediately behind her vehicle. She said she did not observe any emergency lights on the police cruiser when she first saw it.

She said a vehicle next to her on the inside lane